The petitioner has applied for grant of bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No.207, dated 28-8-1991 for an offence under section 13 of Arms Ordinance 20 of 1965 and section 7 of Ordinance, 20 of 1991 (Surrender of Illicit Arms Ordinance), at Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi. According to the allegations made in the F.I.R. The petitioner was found in possession of .32 bore revolver for which he did not hold any valid licence.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the alleged recovery was made on 28-8-1991 about 8 days after the last date for surrender of illicit arms specified in the Notification issued by the Government. He submits that the provisions of section 7 of the Ordinance could be attracted in those cases in which people were in possession of unlicensed arms specified in the Schedule of the Ordinance and did not surrender the same despite issuance of the notification. He explained that the expression `fails to surrender' was necessarily relatable to issuance of a notification. As no fresh notification has been issued after 20th of August, 1991 the petitioner may, at the most be held liable for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. He further urged that the weapon recovered from the petitioner was not covered by the provisions of section 2(1)(a)(v) as the same was not fitted with some appliance for silencing the voice.
3. On the other hand the learned AA: G. Urged that the offence committed by the petitioner fell within the ambit of section 7 of Ordinance NO.XX of 1991. He submitted that an opportunity was afforded to the public---at-large to surrender the arms and after the target date whoever was found in possession of unlicensed weapons specified in the Ordinance, could be held liable for an offence under section 7 of the Ordinance. Lastly he submitted that all kinds of weapons and fire- arms including appliances for silencing the voice of a fire-arm were covered by section 2(1)(a)(v) of the Ordinance.
4. There is considerable force in the arguments raised by the learned AA: G. The Government had issued a notification calling upon the general public to surrender illicit arms to the authorities on or before 20-&1991. This was a concession and those who availed of it were absolved of the criminal liability. However, those who were in possession of the illicit arms speed in the Ordinance and did not surrender the same or acquired possession of the illicit arms after the target date were liable for the offence under section 7 of the Ordinance. In the Ordinance, sections 4, 5 and 7 which relate to surrender of illicit arms are reproduced below:--
4. Surrender of illicit arms.-- All persons in possession or control of any illicit arms shall surrender such arms within such time as is notified by the Federal Government to the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner or Officer-in-charge of a police station within whose jurisdiction such persons ordinarily reside or to such other authority as may be specified by the Federal Government by notification in the official Gazette.
5. Surrender of arms. Etc. By persons on visit abroad.
A person on the lawful visit abroad at the commencement of this Ordinance shall, within the time notified under section 4 of his return to Pakistan through an authorised route or port of entry, surrender and deposit all illicit arms in his possession or control to one of the authorities specified in section 4.
7. Punishments: - Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 4 or section 5 or fails to surrender illicit arms shall:-- (a)in respect of illicit arms defined in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of section 2 be punished with imprisonment for life and forfeiture of property, both movable and immovable. (b) in respect of illicit arms defined in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of section 22, be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years having regard to the antecedents of the accused; and (c) in respect of illicit arms defined in sub-clause (v) of clause
(a) of section 2, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years but shall not be less than three years, having regard to the antecedents of the accused.
Under section 4 all persons in possession or control of illicit arms have to surrender the same within the time specified in the notification issued by the Federal Government. Under section 5, the persons who were abroad at the time of the commencement of the Ordinance, on their return to Pakistan, have to surrender the illicit arms in their possession within the same time which is specified in the Notification. Thus, it is evident that keeping of illicit arms is an offence by itself and grant of an opportunity to surrender the same was a mere concession one shown to all the citizens and no fresh or successive notifications are required to bring the possession of illicit arms within the ambit of section 7 of the Ordinance, after the expiry of the period fixed in the notification. The intent of the legislature becomes clear by reading subsection (1) of section 7 of the Ordinance. It says that whoever, contravenes the provisions of sections 4 and 5 or `fails to surrender illicit arms' shall be punished with imprisonment of different descriptions specified under (a, b and c) of subsection (1) of section 7. If possession of illicit arms during the period prior to the target date (fixed in the notification) alone was an offence then use of the expression `or fails to surrender illicit arms' was redundant. Ordinarily, the legislature or the law-maker is presumed to have used every word in the statute with a purpose and no redundancy is to be attributed to a statute. The argument that the possession of illicit arms acquired after 20-8--1991 is not an offence under the Ordinance, runs counter to the declared objectives of the Ordinance as well as the provisions of section 7 read with section 9 of the Ordinance. The law was not framed merely to take action against those who possessed illicit arms before 20-8-1991. It was framed in the larger public interest for surrender of illicit arms and improvement and control of law and order situation in the country. For that purpose, an opportunity was provided through a notification for surrender of illicit arms before a specified date and thereafter all those who had illicit arms in their possession were liable for the offence under section 7 of the Ordinance. By virtue of provisions of section 9 of the Ordinance, on the expiry of the period for surrender of illicit arms, a campaign for recovery of the illicit arms was to be launched by the Federal Government and the Provincial Government in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the Cr.P.C. Hence, whoever, is found in possession of illicit arms specified in the Ordinance after the target date, irrespective of the fact whether the possession succeeds or preceeds the target date, is liable to be punished under section 7 of the Ordinance.
5. The argument that only those rifles, carbines etc. Which fall within the ambit of section 2(1)(a)(v) of the Ordinance which are fitted with appliances for silencing of fire arms, has no force. Under the said provision of the Ordinance, possession of rifles, carbines, muskets, shotguns, revolvers, pistols and the appliances the object of which is silencing of fire-arm and all other fire-arms not included in sub-clause (4) is punishable. The possession of appliances used for the purposes of silencing fire-arms is independently an offence. It is not necessary that in order to fall within the definition of words `illicit arms', the weapons must necessarily be fitted with the appliances for silencing the voice of the fire-arms.
6. Adverting to the facts of the present case the petitioner was found in possession of 32 bore revolver which falls within the definition of illicit arms given in clause 5 of subsection 1(a) of section 2 of the Ordinance. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 14 years but shall not be less than 3 years. The offence clearly falls within the prohibition of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
7. For the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed.